DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
A power of attorney is of record for this application, filed 12/17/2021.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s response of 7/8/2026 is received. The response amended claims 3-6. Claim 2 remains cancelled, claims 1 and 3-22 are pending, with claims 8-20 withdrawn as non-elected. An IDs was also submitted on 7/28/26.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: biometric measuring device, environmental measuring device, acceleration measuring device and monitoring unit in claims 1, 3-7, 21, and 22.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Appelt et al. (Appelt, U.S. 8,085,144) in view of Sengupta et al. (U.S. 10,667,571). Appelt discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Appelt teaches a helmet comprising an outer shell (Official Notice is taken that helmets include an outer shell. Alternatively, see Sengupta), an outer surface of the outer shell, an inner surface of the outer shell, the inner surface defining a cavity configured to receive a head of a person wearing the helmet, a biometric measuring device 23 supported by the outer shell (disclosed as embedded in the protective equipment) and configured to measure a biometric characteristic (e.g. heart rate, respiration rate, core body temperature) of the person wearing the helmet; an environmental measuring device 22 supported by the outer shell (disclosed as embedded in the protective equipment) and configured to measure an atmospheric condition (e.g. ambient temperature, barometric pressure, wind conditions); and a monitoring unit 12 configured to generate an alarm as a result of a first measurement of a first biometric characteristic or atmospheric condition being above a first predetermined threshold (set point) and of a second measurement of a second biometric characteristic or atmospheric condition being above a second predetermined threshold (set point), wherein the second biometric or atmospheric condition is different than the first biometric characteristic or atmospheric condition, wherein each of the first measurement and the second measurement are received from one of the biometric measuring device 23 and the environmental measuring device 22. Appelt outlines the details of the monitoring system in col.8, lines 14-67 and continuing to col.9: "For some applications equipment sensors 21, environmental sensors 22 and physiological sensors 23 may include digital potentiometers (not expressly shown) which may be used to provide adjustable set points to indicate the presence of one or more hazardous or potentially hazardous conditions and one or more critical conditions." Comparator circuit 24 provides a signal to the microprocessor 12 in response to a comparison between respective set points and respective outputs from equipment sensors 21, environmental sensors 22 and physiological sensors 23. Microprocessor 12 may then provide signals to drive or actuate one or more visible indicators 28a through 28n. For one embodiment, visible indicators 28a through 28n may indicate ambient temperatures of 300 degrees Fahrenheit and 600 degrees Fahrenheit and heart rates of 120 beats per minute and 150 beats per minute. However, these set points are preferably variable and may have other values. Microprocessor 12 may provide signals to an optional alarm 30 (may be audible or a vibration alarm). Early signaling will afford personnel wearing system 10 with ample time to react to the corresponding critical conditions and make informed decisions as to whether to proceed or withdraw. However, Appelt doesn't teach the protective headwear is a hard hat. Sengupta teaches a hard hat 44 comprising an outer shell, the hard hat comprising a biometric measuring device 56 and an environmental measuring device 58 for measuring biometric and environmental parameters of the hard hat and hard hat wearer as part of a condition responsive indication assembly for monitoring and analyzing data to improve health and safety outcomes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Appelt's helmet to form as a hard hat, as a simple substitution of one type of protective headwear for another, with such substitution not affecting the function of the monitoring system.
For claim 3, the modified Appelt teaches the hard hat of claim 1, wherein the first measurement and/or the second measurement is of an atmospheric condition, selected from the group consisting of a temperature of ambient air around the hard hat and a humidity of ambient air around the hard hat (col.5, lines 48-52 disclose sensor 58 is an ambient temperature sensor).
For claim 4, the modified Appelt teaches the hard hat of claim 1, but doesn't teach the hard hat further comprising an acceleration measuring device configured to measure an acceleration of the hard hat and generate a signal to the monitoring unit indicating a measurement of the acceleration, the monitoring unit is configured to generate an alarm as a result of analyzing the measurement of the acceleration. Sengupta teaches an accelerometer as an example of an environmental sensor and accelerometers measure acceleration of an object and changes in acceleration, with the associated data received by the processing unit 12 to generate notifications and/or alarms upon analysis of the measurement of acceleration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Appel's hard hat to comprise an acceleration measuring device that measures an acceleration of the hard hat and generates a signal to the monitoring unit indicating a measurement of the acceleration, the monitoring unit is configured to generate an alarm as a result of analyzing the measurement of the acceleration, as Sengupta teaches the accelerometer is known in the art as part of a condition responsive indication assembly.
For claim 6, the modified Appelt teaches the hard hat of claim 1, wherein the first measurement and/or second measurement is of a biometric characteristic that is a heart rate of the person wearing the hard hat as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
For claim 7, the modified Appelt's outer shell comprises a plurality of locations each configured to couple with a measuring device and the biometric measuring device is coupled to a first location of the plurality of locations and the environmental measuring device is coupled to a second location of the plurality of locations as Appelt teaches the sensors are embedded in the helmet.
For claim 22, Appelt teaches the first measurement is one of the biometric characteristic (heart rate) or the atmospheric condition and the second measurement is of the other of the biometric characteristic or the atmospheric condition (ambient temperature) as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Appelt '144 in view of Sengupta '571 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morgan '808. Appelt discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Appelt doesn't teach the hard hat of claim 1, wherein the first measurement or the second measurement is of a galvanic skin response measurement. Morgan teaches a wearable device in the form of a helmet 10 including a biometric measuring device for measuring a biometric characteristic comprising a galvanic skin response measurement (col.10, lines 52-57). Thus, Morgan serves as a teaching that such biometric measuring devices are known in the art and provide useful data regarding the wearer's bodily functions during athletics or other endeavors of the helmet wearer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Appelt to provide the first measurement and/or second measurement that is a galvanic skin response measurement as Morgan discloses that the galvanic skin response measurement is useful for monitoring a wearer's health.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Appelt '144 in view of Sengupta '571 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ogushi '407. Appelt discloses the invention substantially as claimed including the first measurement is of the biometric characteristic and is a heart rate, and the second measurement is of the atmospheric condition, but doesn't teach the atmospheric condition is a humidity of ambient air. Ogushi teaches that it's known in the art to provide a helmet with a sensor module 200 including a humidity sensor that provides a measurement of the humidity of ambient air. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Appelt to provide the measurement of a humidity of ambient air as taught by Ogushi as Ogushi teaches that monitoring the humidity of ambient air can keep the helmet wearer safe and comfortable.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner acknowledges the claim amendments overcoming the rejections under 35 USC 112b. Applicant’s arguments to the prior art have been considered. Applicant submits that nothing in Appelt generally or in the cited disclosure from Appelt’s specification describes generating an alarm based on two different measurements of biometric characteristics or atmospheric conditions as recited in claim 1, as the cited portions of Appelt describe that different measurements may be taken of different characteristics or conditions and based on the measurements Appelt may generate an alarm. Applicant further submits that Appelt explicitly recites that the comparator circuit 24 may generate a signal based on a comparison of respective set points and respective outputs from equipment sensors 21, environmental sensors 22 and physiological sensors 23. Applicant summarizes their position by submitting that the signals analyzed in Appelt are measurements from a single sensor with respect to respective set points and respective output of the single sensor which is different than alarm generation that requires satisfaction of two separate threshold conditions corresponding to two different monitored characteristics, as recited in claim 1. The Examiner submits that claim 1 requires a biometric measuring device (Appelt, 23) supported by the outer shell for measuring a biometric characteristic of the hard hat wearer, an environmental measuring device (Appelt, 22) supported by the outer shell for measuring an atmospheric condition, and a monitoring unit (Appelt, 12) capable of generating an alarm as a result of a first biometric characteristic or atmospheric condition being above a first threshold and of a second measurement of a second biometric characteristic or atmospheric condition being above a second predetermined threshold and the second biometric or atmospheric condition being different than the first biometric or atmospheric condition and each of the first measurement and second measurement are received from one of the biometric measuring device and environmental measuring device. The claim requires that the second biometric characteristic or atmospheric condition (e.g. a second ambient temperature) is different than the first biometric or atmospheric condition (e.g.first ambient temperature) as taught by Appelt and each of the first and second measurement are received from one of the biometric and environmental measuring device. The thresholds are disclosed as the set points programmed by the wearer or manufacturer as in Figure 2. It is noted that Appelt also teaches that the alarm generation requires satisfaction of two separate threshold conditions corresponding to two different monitored characteristics, as the system continually monitors selected equipment, environmental and physiological conditions above the respective thresholds.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
/KATHERINE M MORAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights